Interesting Studies: Probably low carb related in one way or another

Options
1…1213151718…27

Replies

  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    Thank you for contributing @Wetcoaster but just to be clear that study is BS and has prompted criticism from every corner.

    John Ioannidis, in JAMA, on the incredibly flawed foundations of nutritional research and dietary recommendations. Given subscribers here are likely interested in nutrition, I believe this to be an important enough read that I don't want to recommend you read anything else. -Yoni Freedhoff
  • Wetcoaster
    Wetcoaster Posts: 1,788 Member
    Options
    Yes I do know that..... I just thought I would put it out there for discussion B)
  • Wetcoaster
    Wetcoaster Posts: 1,788 Member
    edited August 2018
    Options
    Here is a link to the study

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(18)30135-X/fulltext


    Oops...it did work. I just copied in and pasted it and it worked fine.
  • Wetcoaster
    Wetcoaster Posts: 1,788 Member
    Options
    This is a good read also

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets#section1
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,394 MFP Moderator
    Options
    Wetcoaster wrote: »
    This is a good read also

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets#section1

    Funny this is, this has been on the forums for several years. I always laugh because they never hold protein constant and it doesn't differentiate fat loss. If they want to design a low carb vs low fat study well, hold protein constant and do a lay in period so you can get results post water weight loss.
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    Good resource for anyone interested in the clinical trials being done on ketogentic diets and cancer.

    clinicaltrials.gov
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    Worthwhile thread on lipids/cholesterol:

    Section 1: discusses the mechanisms.
    Section 2: the effect of insulin.
    Section 3: the relationship with other blood markers.
    Section 4: the effect of diet.
    Section 5: the impact in atherosclerosis.
    Section 6: longevity syndrome (separate thread - in progress)
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    Low-fat versus ketogenic diet in parkinson's disease: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

    RESULTS: We randomized 47 patients, of which 44 commenced the diets and 38 completed the study (86% completion rate for patients commencing the diets). The ketogenic diet group maintained physiological ketosis. Both groups significantly decreased their MDS-UPDRS scores, but the ketogenic group decreased more in Part 1 (41% improvement in baseline Part 1 scores) compared to the low-fat group (11% improvement) (P < 0.001), with the largest between-group decreases observed for urinary problems, pain and other sensations, fatigue, daytime sleepiness, and cognitive impairment. There were no between-group differences in the magnitude of decrease for Parts 2 to 4. The most common adverse effects were excessive hunger in the low-fat group and intermittent exacerbation of the PD tremor and/or rigidity in the ketogenic group.

    CONCLUSIONS: It is plausible and safe for PD patients to maintain a low-fat or ketogenic diet for 8 weeks. Both diet groups significantly improved in motor and nonmotor symptoms; however, the ketogenic group showed greater improvements in nonmotor symptoms.

    Source
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    edited August 2018
    Options
    Kevin Hall on doubly labeled water and low carb/ketogenic diets:

    Believes doubly labeled water might not be valid for low carb and ketogenic diets. (Energy expenditure was 209±83 kcal/d higher than expected compared to baseline which didn't match other measures of energy expenditure.)
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    AlabasterVerve wrote: »
    Kevin Hall on doubly labeled water and low carb/ketogenic diets:

    Believes doubly labeled water might not be valid for low carb and ketogenic diets. (Energy expenditure was 209±83 kcal/d higher than expected compared to baseline which didn't match other measures of energy expenditure.)

    I think it is possible he is trying to explain away his DLW results from his keto energy expenditure study with the so-called isocaloric KD from a couple of years ago. The DLW showed a raisesd EE of about 150 kcal whereas the EE chamber showed an increase of just less than 60kcal. If the DLW was right, that's an extra pound lost every 3 weeks, or up to 17 lbs a year.
    https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/2/324/4564649

    But no EE benefit, right? ;)
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,394 MFP Moderator
    Options
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    AlabasterVerve wrote: »
    Kevin Hall on doubly labeled water and low carb/ketogenic diets:

    Believes doubly labeled water might not be valid for low carb and ketogenic diets. (Energy expenditure was 209±83 kcal/d higher than expected compared to baseline which didn't match other measures of energy expenditure.)

    I think it is possible he is trying to explain away his DLW results from his keto energy expenditure study with the so-called isocaloric KD from a couple of years ago. The DLW showed a raisesd EE of about 150 kcal whereas the EE chamber showed an increase of just less than 60kcal. If the DLW was right, that's an extra pound lost every 3 weeks, or up to 17 lbs a year.
    https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/2/324/4564649

    But no EE benefit, right? ;)

    Assuming all things have linear relationships wouldn't be a good assumption. Its rare to find those types of relationships.

    And IIRC, the increase in EE was temporary and didn't lead to additional fat loss. It was more explained as a result of the body creating ketones. So if that thought was true, it would explain why it disappeared after a few days.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    AlabasterVerve wrote: »
    Kevin Hall on doubly labeled water and low carb/ketogenic diets:

    Believes doubly labeled water might not be valid for low carb and ketogenic diets. (Energy expenditure was 209±83 kcal/d higher than expected compared to baseline which didn't match other measures of energy expenditure.)

    I think it is possible he is trying to explain away his DLW results from his keto energy expenditure study with the so-called isocaloric KD from a couple of years ago. The DLW showed a raisesd EE of about 150 kcal whereas the EE chamber showed an increase of just less than 60kcal. If the DLW was right, that's an extra pound lost every 3 weeks, or up to 17 lbs a year.
    https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/2/324/4564649

    But no EE benefit, right? ;)

    Assuming all things have linear relationships wouldn't be a good assumption. Its rare to find those types of relationships.

    And IIRC, the increase in EE was temporary and didn't lead to additional fat loss. It was more explained as a result of the body creating ketones. So if that thought was true, it would explain why it disappeared after a few days.

    As I understand it, they assumed increased EE was temporary because it was on the decline when the study ended. It was not a long term study.

    But we probably shouldn't debate that he and derail this thread. We've argued this a fair bit in the past anyways. :);)
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    I don't think he's trying to explain away the results in a negative, trying to defend his work way. I think there's legitimate basis for thinking the DLW needs to be validated for low carb diets.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    AlabasterVerve wrote: »
    I don't think he's trying to explain away the results in a negative, trying to defend his work way. I think there's legitimate basis for thinking the DLW needs to be validated for low carb diets.

    Could be. My anti-Hall bias could be shining through. ;)
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    LOL I understand. :)
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,394 MFP Moderator
    Options
    AlabasterVerve wrote: »
    I don't think he's trying to explain away the results in a negative, trying to defend his work way. I think there's legitimate basis for thinking the DLW needs to be validated for low carb diets.

    I think its a good thing. Evolving measurements and modeling is a pinnacle to evolving science.
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    If anyone is wondering why Alan Aragon deleted his accounts here's a summary of events and links to those in the fitness industry who are commenting.

    tl;dr Alan Aragon posted that he had a problem with alcoholism. He was called out and it turned out he had been kicked out of a conference for repeatedly harassing multiple women (and that he had done it before). -inde_, Reddit


  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    Julia Belluz: The myth of the slow metabolism
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    Re: Follow up to this post/study from February:
    AlabasterVerve wrote: »
    Effect of Low-Fat vs Low-Carbohydrate Diet on 12-Month Weight Loss in Overweight Adults and the Association With Genotype Pattern or Insulin Secretion

    Findings In this randomized clinical trial among 609 overweight adults, weight change over 12 months was not significantly different for participants in the HLF diet group (−5.3 kg) vs the HLC diet group (−6.0 kg), and there was no significant diet-genotype interaction or diet-insulin interaction with 12-month weight loss.

    Source

    STUDY DESIGN & METHODS

    Participants received explicit instructions that the rate of restriction was
    not critical to the study, and that reaching the 20 grams per day in two vs. four vs. six vs.
    eight weeks was not considered to carry any advantage or disadvantage. Therefore, their rate
    could be variable and individually tailored. The instructions also included a clear statement
    that, even though 20 grams per day was the objective, any individuals who were unable to
    reach those low levels would not be dropped from the study or considered to be non-
    compliant; rather, the expectation was more consistent with the concept of the party game
    Limbo – go as low as you can go.

    Once participants reached their lowest level of fat or
    carbohydrate intake, they were encouraged to maintain that level for at least a few weeks.
    There was no specific set time for maintaining the lowest level. Rather, it was explained to
    participants that the goal was to provide them with the personal experience of being
    anchored at the lowest level they could achieve and maintain, at least for a week or two.

    Source
    Worth following up on to see what comes of it:

    Hall/Gardner: Objective versus Self-Reported Energy Intake Changes During Low-Carbohydrate and Low-Fat Diets

    Conclusions: Self-reported measurements of ΔEI were inaccurate. Model-based calculations of ΔEI found that instructions to follow the low-carbohydrate diet resulted in greater calorie restriction than the low-fat diet in the early phases of the intervention, but these diet differences were not sustained.

    Source
    https://twitter.com/KevinH_PhD/status/1042936872731926528

  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options

Categories